+++ Lesenswerte Postings +++ - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[ZimtOchse]

Bitte immer mit Quellenangabe

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/news/topposts.cgi?articleid=TOPP…
By: Attila_the_Nun 04-11-01 at 11:29 am

Waldo: yeah, it`s pretty simple.

It`s called the "I am a Wall Street Trader" Phenomena, and it goes something like this:

1) I am a Wall Street trader. I work at a bulge bracket firm. The investment banks for my firm go out and ##### themselves to companies in exchange for 3-7% of the total proceeds they can raise in big fundraising efforts called road shows. In turn, the analysts at my company talk up these turd stocks, our retail guys (you know, the boys who didn`t get into an Ivy League school like I did) go out and push the trash into the hands of small investors (`suckers`), and then after six months I help the big boys get out of those trash stocks.

2) Of course, it`s much better if we can play the stock around like a football (or a hackey sack) for a while before we sell like crazed wombats. So---we trot out analysts who say `sell` when they mean `buy` and `buy` when they mean `sell`. Sometimes they say `accumulate`, which is when we laugh like ####. The little guys out there get such funny expressions on their little pinched up lower middle class Willie Loman faces.

3) Have you ever seen what a little person lives in? Yeah, no doubt, it`s amazing, I couldn`t even fathom it, but they live in sad, grey, stucco-covered little subdivision houses that all look exactly alike. Dragsville, man; I think it makes the little guys crazy with greed, which is why they`re so susceptible to manipulation.

4) Which leads me to my point: I got a lot of expenses, man. I`m pulling in maybe 1.5 mill gross a year, and yeah, that sounds like a lot, but this is New York. I got a mortgage that eats up 350K a year, I got a kid in Dalton, I got a Jaguar supercharged, I got a house in the Hamptons, I got a beach house on Fire Island, I got to pay for my wife`s frilly things and for my girlfriend`s frilly things, and I got to pay for my son`s limo driver. That`s a drag, man---so I need a big year-end bonus.

5) So what we do, day in, day out, is we dream up trading strategies to pull investors in. Mostly we get the stupid little guys, but some days we get big institutions--like today. We buy up less than block shares in waves, to make it look like smaller investors are buying, and then, after 2 or so, but certainly going into the weekend, we sell like crack addicted howler monkeys. And we make money. And at year end, we get big bonuses.

6) And this year, Big Daddy, I think I`m gonna get the Big Kahuna Bonus of them all. ####, maybe I`ll buy an island...

[ZimtOchse]

vielleicht ein bisschen trocken, aber nicht uninteressant:

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/news/topposts.cgi?articleid=TOPP…
By: Tetres 04-19-01 at 6:44 pm Post # 218792

I have sent this letter to CNBC...Folks should read it and if you agree take heed.

Dear Sirs

I am writing this letter As I am extremely perturbed by what I consider to be continuous manipulation when reporting earnings, by your reporting team. They consistently, in my opinion, taint their reporting when they announce corporate earnings. I hope this is not a concerted effort, but it sure appears to be so, on the part of your firm to manipulate public sediment and/or to pump the various stocks and indexes.

I consistently hear, when watching your show, from your reporting team, that Company "X" has meet and/or beat analysis`s expectations¡Kwhen they are reporting the various company`s earnings. They conveniently, do not disclose that the firms that are reporting about only meet and/or beat revised earnings, nor do the state how much the earnings have been revised downward and/or upward during the quarter.

To not report the whole story is reprehensible, it is the worst type of yellow journalism. It gives investors, who have come to rely on your firm for accurate information; tainted information which may if acted upon, without further due diligence cause them financial harm.


In, case you do not fully understand what I mean, I give the following example:

This afternoon, one Ms. Bartiromo stated (correctly) that Sun Microsystems beats analysis`s expectations. And she explained that things are looking up and the outlook is getting better. Now where, in during report did I hear that, the expectations for SUNW have been lowered many times during this quarter. nor did she explain the earnings, all she did was give the impression to all watching that this firm is doing great as they beat the earnings expectation.

Now as Paul Harvey would here is the rest of the story:

„« Sun Microsystems did beat its revised per-share earnings target by one penny.
„« Net income fell 43 percent and while revenue grew 2 percent. (This is an area where your firm should have taken the opportunity to do some real reporting and use it`s so called expertise to help inform the public about the significance of these numbers)
„« Sun Microsystems reported third-quarter net income of $263 million, or 8 cents a share, compared with $464 million, during the same quarter last year. (Never did your firm mention that this is a HUGE sequential quarter over quarter decline, Never did your reporter state that these earnings were 5-cents less this quarter/quarter)
„« Of the Analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial the average consensus had been reduced to¡Kexpected earnings of 7 cents a share, with revenue of approximate $4.45 billion. Actual revenue was $4.1 billion compared with $4.01 billion during the same quarter last year.
„« During this reporting period Analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial had reduced the average consensus from 17 cents a share to 7 cents a share. (This was never mentioned)
„« The reporter keyed in on a quote from Chief Financial Officer Michael Lehman "We expect to report slight sequential revenue growth in Q4`` of the current fiscal year he said, referring to a quarter-on-quarter gain." She acted and appeared to be very impressed by this information. (Never did she explain what this statement truly meant, or what it could mean ).

A more accurate report would have stated that Sun Microsystems Inc. barely beat consensus analyst profit forecasts in its third fiscal quarter, and that sales missed the lowered target., and that Sun had predicted on February 22 that it would earn 7-9 cents per share on a 10-13 percent rise in sales, and that said ranges were 50% below Wall Street`s expectations.

The report should have reflected the following:
That the sales at SUNW, which had previously scaled back its targets in February, rose 2 percent to $4.10 billion from $4.0 billion last year, while operating earnings were $263 million, or 8 cents per share after $464 million, or 14 cents in the quarter a year ago.

There was no mention by Ms. Bartiromo of the following quotes at all as, in my opinion these did not paint the picture that I believe your firm is attempting to paint¡Kthat things are all rosy, and that the markets should only be focusing on the perceived good. This is in my humble opinion a sham, and an illegal act. It is a blatant attempt to mislead the public.

Michael Lehman, Sun`s chief financial officer and executive vice president, said: ``Our results reflected the sharp decline in capital spending in the information technology sector, principally in the United States, although we did see some moderation of demand in Europe and Asia Pacific,`` and he followed by saying ``Going forward, we will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that Sun retains its competitive advantage over the long run. At the same time, we will focus on the appropriate trade-offs in order to align our cost structure with our revenue growth expectations.``


I await your response as to why this type of reporting is being done, and if you intend to continue to taint the news. If I do not receive a timely response I will be taking my complaints to the SEC as well as my U.S. Senator.


Sincerely Yours

[TOP@S]

Hi ZIMTI....

Unbelievable......

Das haste ja nen geiles ding ausgegraben.....too much,really

Aber es bestätigt natürlich genau das was wir ja irgendwie

alle schon immer vemutet haben.

Gruß Topas

[Gösta]

Hier mein Beitrag!

http://a512.g.ak.playboy.com/7/512/23/985806417/www.playboy.…

[ZimtOchse]

Hi Top@s

@Gösta
sehr schöner Hintern, ähhh, Hintergrund natürlich, äußerst tiefsinnig.
Aber ob die Dinger echt sind, ööhm, ob da alles mit rechten Dingen zugeht ???

ciao ZO

[Gösta]

ZO,

richtige Fragen, wie bei MBX!

[roger11]

Mattes

Post 1

[Matthaeus6k34]

Moin Gemeinde,

Roger Re-Poscht.

[roger11]

Mattes

Poscht 2

[roger11]

Schlussabsatz des heutigen Spiegelartikels über den NM-Wahnsinn.


Den heutigen Akteuren ist das offenbar völlig schnuppe. Sie haben sich einen lockeren Umgang mit dem Anlegergeld angewöhnt, nur zu gern gönnen sie sich einen Schuss Größenwahn. "Große Summen inspirieren mich", tönte Sunburst-Chef Benjamin Gawlik, 28. Noch wenige Wochen vor dem jetzt beantragten Insolvenzverfahren, der Aktienkurs befand sich bereits im freien Fall, hatte er für die Anleger nur Hohn und Spott übrig: "Letztendlich ist es alles nur ein großes Spiel."





R.

[tali]

natürlich ist das wie alles andere auch ein spiel...
manche fallen auf den hintern und freuen sich......manche auf die schnauze, die freuen sich dann gar nicht...
und dazwischen gibt es viel raum für alle möglichen variationen und spielarten...
wie war das nochmal...???
die welt ist die bühne...wir die akteure...
alle die glauben, kommen mal in den himmel...
alle die nicht glauben haben den himmel (vielleicht) schon auf erden...
ich nehme mir mal das letztere...vielleicht gibt`s ja noch nen nachschlag...

[roger11]

Um den Berglemming ranken sich merkwürdige Geschichten: Die Tiere sollen sich zu großen Zügen zusammenschließen und gemeinsam ins Meer stürzen.

[gholzbauer]

[ZimtOchse]

Entdeckt von schnaeppchenjaeger:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/110600.asp

Beware of the Basher

The Investing Guys (Investopedia.com)

Whether you are just starting to invest online or a seasoned veteran, chances are you`ve seen the message boards and chat rooms that focus on stocks. Many of these boards make rag mags look tame. These sites churn out rumor after rumor 24 hours a day, with some of the more popular boards getting upwards of 10,000 posts daily.

The Internet has changed the financial industry to a greater extent than nearly any other sector. In the pre-Internet era, there was no way for individual investors from every corner of the globe to meet and talk about the prospects and threats of a company. This free-flow of information has changed the very way we invest. This does not come without a price, the anonymity of the Internet has also allowed for creative, yet unscrupulous people to artificially deviate and control the price of a stock. We refer to these people as bashers.

The Paid Basher.

This profession may seem fairly simple, but there is a science behind it. A basher`s intentions usually go further than just trying to push the price of a stock down for their own good. Supposedly reputable companies and investment firms may use a basher for things such as takeovers. You see, if one company wants to buy another, stock price is king. For a multi-million dollar company a $1 change in the stock price is a difference of millions of dollars. A basher who successfully pushes the price of a stock down can receive a very lucrative compensation.

There are three major types of bashers: advanced, intermediate and beginner. An advanced basher would spread false or misleading information about the company. They would deal in facts, countering every long post with articles, news reports and opinion surveys that gave a negative impression about the company. An intermediate basher tries to weasel their way into the confidence of longs and create doubt using rumor or innuendo. Finally, a beginner basher would attempt to create confusion in the room by distracting other posters with satire, name calling and pointless arguments. Their goal is to make sure no serious discussion of the stock takes place.

Bashers go about their job very professionally. First they develop a character to build both awareness and trust from others on the chat board. Bashers are careful to never to use profanity or vulgarity because that would cause people to ignore them. Quite often they will answer posts in a way that ridiculed the questioner for asking such a "stupid" question. The idea is to get a reaction from other posters. The more reaction, the more the room would be disrupted. To throw yet another monkey wrench into this mix, bashers often send in another person to side with the longs of a stock. The idea behind this is to again distract people from a stock and spread rumor and confusion throughout the room.

The truth is that this is happening everyday. There are people out there who make a good living by bashing. Keep this in mind, participating in a chat forum is both enjoying and sometimes insightful, but take each message with a grain of salt.

Cheers,

The Investing Guys
[e-mail]


siehe auch Thread: +++ Some facts about BASHERS +++

[ZimtOchse]

Sehr interessanter Thread über Optionsscheine: Thread: Die Citi Gangster,Betrug wie am NM!!Lasst euch nicht reinlegen!!
(wenn ihr weitere gute Threads zu dem Thema kennt, bitte hier darauf aufmerksam machen)

ciao ZO

[Gösta]

Weiß jemand, was aus Dreierpack-tali geworden ist?

Ist er etwa in eines seiner berühmten Startlöcher gefallen?

Wozu brauch dieser Mensch überhaupt Startlöcher?

Der ist doch auch ohne mit der Vorverurteilung verdammt schnell.

Bin mal gespannt, was er uns demnächst wieder für

eine fernöstliche Märchengeschichte auftischt.

tali ist, wie er uns selbst dargelegt hat,

Literaturspezialist, leider nur für

Märchen aus 1001 Nacht.

tali, komm, mach mal ein tiefes wohltönendes Unkenquok.

Gösta

PS. Im Märchenerzählen bin ich ihm nicht gewachsen, no doubt!

[Gösta]

Wenn so gar kein Ton mehr kommt,

wird es richtig unkenheimlich hier am Board.

[weil]

Gösta,

als das Universum sich um sein tullisches Zentrum gedreht hat, sind die Gravitationskräfte beim Lochgraben zu gross geworden.
Aber wie ich unseren Nostratulli kenne, wird er auch aus diesem schwarzen Loch `rausklettern sich den Mund abputzen und weiterunken.



P.S wenn Tulli keine Lust mehr hat, spielen wir halt ne Runde Bauernskat.

[ZimtOchse]

keine grossen Geheimnisse, aber ganz interessant:

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/news/topposts.cgi?articleid=TOPP…

Shorting Strategies

As someone who does a lot of shorting, I`d like to make a comment on the post by DonDon78. I was drawn to it since a link to it appeared on the front page of RagingBull.

First, the comments on the possible downside of shorting are true. You have the potential of unlimited losses and this means shorting can be dangerous.

In practice, however, stocks don`t go to infinity and you could put in a cover (buy) order at a limit to reduce risk. As for myself, I don`t actually put in limit cover orders. I just tend to watch the stock at least once a day. This is not my suggested way to do things, it`s just what I do.

The real test of a short is sticking in there when the stock has gone up 50%. On one hand, you don`t want to suck it in and take a big loss. On the other hand, the possibility of more losses is tearing at you to sell the stock. That`s the squeeze. If you do cover (buy back) the stock, you`re driving the price higher and squeezing the other shorts - and even yourself if you only cover part of your position.

But I digress. The main thing I wanted to add was to this portion of the post:

"You sell the stock short. How much is the maximum you can make? What you sold it for. Its price certainly won`t drop below zero; no one will pay you to take it from them."

The maximum you can make of the single trade is what you sold it for. However, that is not the amount of money you can make shorting a stock.

The upside of shorting is impractically but theoretically unlimited, just as the downside is theoretically unlimited. This is the trick to understanding (and loving) shorting.

Consider the following two cases:

Case A.

You short (sell) 10 shares of STCK at $100. STCK goes to $0 and you cover (buy back). You made $1000. So, its correct that in a single short/cover transaction you can only make what you sold at originally.

Case B.

You short 10 shares of STCK at $100. STCK goes to $50 and you cover. You made $500. Now you take the $500 profit and head back in and short $1500 worth of STCK at $50 (30 shares). STCK goes down to $0. When you cover, you`ve made a total of $1500.

Note that in both cases above, you maintained a $1000 borrowed amount of capital. The difference is in case B, you reinvested your winnings on the way down.

If you reinvest winnings over and over again on the way down, you can have a much higher upside than if you just hold and cover once.

And now a little philosophical rambling...

I like shorting because the stock market is essentially the rich making themselves richer and everyone else trying to get in on the action in one big pyramid scheme. When you buy stock in a company, what are you really buying? You are buying nothing. You`re vote doesn`t count for anything unless you own at least 5% of the company.

It`s like if I sold you a share in my house but you couldn`t live in it. What do you really own? Nothing. Sure, you could say if I sold my house, I might have to give you something. But I`m not going to sell my house for cash and give you the cash. I might trade up for another house and live in it and you could own a small percentage of that one.

By the way, you can`t live with me in that one either and I think its time for me to own more of the house myself so I`m giving myself another couple percent of the house since I`ve taken care of it so well.

So... given that I`m so down on the basic premise of the market, why am I involved in it at all? Because I believe I know how to value stocks. If you consider the house analogy then what would you value a share of stock in my house?

Well, you could value it based on the price of my house and the percentage of ownership the share gives you. But that might now fly. Why not value it at whatever someone would pay for it? That`s essentially the stock market right there.

So, how can I value a stock? Well, as far as specific price, I don`t. I value companies based on one thing only. Is the company going to go bankrupt? If the company goes bankrupt, the stock is going to be worth 0. The game ends, nobody can play anymore. I short stocks I feel will go bankrupt.

The stock of the companies that won`t go bankrupt will float around in the price range of .0001 to 10000. The companies that are going bankrupt are going to 0 and I`ll eventually make my shorting money. In the meantime, the rich will continue to print themselves shares and sell them to the general public, making free money for themselves.

Last year, they sure printed a good chunk of change for themselves. But the general population either doesn`t fully understand what it all means, is just apathetic to the whole thing or hopes to someday join the money printing party themselves.

[ZimtOchse]

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=UPGD&rea…
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/business/yourmoney/28WATC.…

The New York Times

April 28, 2002
The Bears on This Message Board Had Enron Pegged
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
uring the stock market mania, Internet message boards earned a reputation as breeding grounds for stock touts. Stock promoters no longer needed to rent offices with banks of phones to profit by manipulating shares. An Internet connection was all the pump-and-dump guys required.

But an academic study to be published this fall in The Journal of Investing indicates that chat rooms can also contain valuable morsels for investors.

The study, by James Felton, associate professor of finance at Central Michigan University, and Jongchai Kim, an assistant professor there, examined messages posted on the Yahoo board devoted to Enron starting in 1997. They found that anonymous postings on the message board presented a compelling history of the company, described a disturbing corporate culture there and repeatedly warned investors to get out while the getting was good.

On April 12, 2001, with the stock at $57.30, one message predicted that Enron would soon be revealed as a house of cards. "The Enron executives have been operating an elaborate con scheme that has fooled even the most sophisticated analysts," the message said. "The first sign of trouble will be an earnings shortfall followed by more warnings. Criminal charges will be brought against ENE executives for their misdeeds. Class action lawsuits will complete the demise of ENE."

But messages posted even earlier also indicated trouble ahead. On March 1, 2000, with the stock at $69, a participant wrote: "Dig deep behind the Enron financials and you`ll see a growing mountain of off-balance-sheet debt which will eventually swallow this company. There`s a reason they layer so many subsidiaries and affiliates. Be careful."

In October 1998, a message said that under Kenneth L. Lay, Enron "developed a flashy reputation." It also said: "He has not delivered value. His management team is smoke and mirrors."

Happy Enron shareholders posted their views as well. In January 2000, one chatter put a $1,000 target on the stock; it closed at $61.25 that day. But Mr. Felton didn`t tally the number of bulls and bears; the task was just too onerous.

The most common warnings related to the significant insider sales by Enron executives, but other comments involved suspicions about the company`s opaque financial statements. On June 17, 1998, JanisJoplin298 wrote that Enron`s financial structure was highly complex. The company "could just as easily bring greater shareholder value by simplifying the capital structure and clearly articulating its deals," the message said.

To which came this reply: "If you find ENE`s structure too complicated, Janis, then maybe stocks aren`t for you. Anybody with even the most rudimentary understanding of accounting shouldn`t have a problem with it."

Mr. Felton, who edited the messages for clarity, said they prove that the fall of Enron did not come without warning, contrary to claims of the Wall Street crowd. "Here you have these people posting on the message board while all the Wall Street analysts are upgrading the stock," he said.

Indeed, on Oct. 28, 1999, this message appeared: "Look at the lease obligations in the footnotes of the 10-K. There are a lot of liabilities that are not included in the balance sheet numbers." Add these liabilities to the balance sheet and "you might think a little differently about the valuation of ENE."

It is impossible to say who was behind the postings. But Mr. Felton said message boards pose a problem for regulators and companies as well as an opportunity for investors willing to slog through Internet verbiage.

"What`s interesting about this is we have inside information that is anonymous but publicly available, and it`s not factored into the stock price," he said. "Companies are being very careful about what information they release to the public, but that doesn`t mean their employees aren`t talking."

[Zitronenhuhn]

@Zimtochse
wenn das so weiter geht, kaufen wir uns auch noch für
23 Mangos eine Insel dort züchten wir dann Zitronenhühner
und brüllen den ganzen Tag im Nervenkostüm umher und jagen
diesen Boniman aus posting #1 anschliessend frikassieren wir
ihn und machen ihn dann zur Schnecke.

[nervenkostuem]

so eine hübsche Moderatorin aber auch





Stephanie
ein Name wie Silberklang

so einen coolen Plasmaschirm hätte Mann auch gerne mal

vielleicht wenn der Weltmarkführer bei 123€ steht, dann bestell ich ihn online direkt an der Quelle :O

Deutschland -die Welt wird viel gutes von dir erfahren, nachdem du soviel schaden angerichtet hast-

[Brueller]

@nervenkostuem
muß Liebe schön sein

#1 von THECANADIEN 06.05.02 19:07:54 Beitrag Nr.: 6.345.444 6345444
Dieses Posting: versenden | melden | drucken TELEFONICA S.A. EO 1 ADR3

Das abgekartete Spiel der Analysten

Von Carsten Matthäus

Merrill Lynch und Star-Analyst Henry Blodget samt seinem Team haben Investoren offenbar systematisch an der Nase herumgeführt. Das geht aus der 38-seitigen Klageschrift hervor, die SPIEGEL ONLINE in Auszügen veröffentlicht.






Schrecken der Analysten: Staatsanwalt Spitzer


New York - Der oberste Staatsanwalt von New York, Eliot Spitzer, ist sich seiner Sache sicher. "Das war ein schockierender Betrug von einer der namhaftesten Wall-Street-Firmen", sagte er auf einer Pressekonferenz. "Dieser Fall muss eine Reform der ganzen Branche nach sich ziehen".

Spitzer und sein Büro haben ganze Arbeit geleistet. Sie sichteten in zehn Monaten rund 30.000 Dokumente. Viele davon waren interne E-Mails, die zwischen Analysten, Chefs und Investmentbankern von Merrill Lynch kursierten. Außerdem wurden rund 20 Zeugen unter Eid vernommen.

Merrill Lynch bemühte sich angesichts der schweren und peinlichen Vorwürfe, seinen Ruf zu verteidigen und wies die Anschuldigungen zurück. Die E-Mails seien aus ihrem Kontext genommen worden und die gezogenen Rückschlüsse "einfach falsch". Vizepräsident Robert McCann, zuständig für den Bereich Research, führte in einer Stellungnahme des Unternehmens die zum Teil bereits unternommenen Schritte an, die Arbeit der Analyse-Abteilung zu verbessern. So sollen Analysten künftig nach Erfüllung ihrer Prognosen bewertet und bezahlt werden. Dies sei Teil einer im vergangenen Sommer gestarteten Überarbeitung des gesamten Research-Bereichs.


Das Dokument der Staatanwälte strotzt nur so von peinlichen Belegen dieses unverschämten Betrugssystems. SPIEGEL ONLINE veröffentlicht nachfolgend Auszüge der Klageschrift:





Vorwurf 1: Merrill Lynch täuschte objektive Bewertungen nur vor




Vorwurf 2: Die öffentlichen Analysen stimmten nicht mit internen Äußerungen überein




Vorwurf 3: Die Internet Group agierte nicht unabhängig vom Investment Banking




Vorwurf 4: Die Bezahlung der Analysten war an die Arbeit für das Investment Banking geknüpft




Vorwurf 5: Die Analysten waren nicht unabhängig von den Firmen, die sie analysierten




Herausgekommen ist ein 38-seitiger Bericht mit haarsträubenden Ergebnissen. Demnach wurden Analysten dafür bezahlt, mit geschönten Empfehlungen neue Kunden für das Investment Banking anzulocken. Aktien, die intern längst als "Stück Scheiße" bezeichnet wurden, wurden in der Öffentlichkeit mit den höchstmöglichen Bewertungen zum Kauf empfohlen.




Merril Lynch: "Schockierender Betrug"


Schlimmer noch: Positive Empfehlungen auszusprechen, die beobachteten Firmen zu beraten oder bei den Firmen für neue Bankdienstleistungen Werbung zu machen, brachte den Merrill-Lynch-Analysten Gehaltserhöhungen ein. Nach Erkenntnissen der Ermittler stieg das Jahreseinkommen des Teamchefs Henry Blodget von 1999 bis 2001 von drei auf zwölf Millionen Dollar an. Blogdet tat etwas für sein Geld: Den Fernsehsendern CNN und CNBC gab er in den Jahren 1999 und 2000 46 beziehungsweise 77 Interviews als "objektiver Analyst" des größten Wall-Street-Hauses.

[TOP@S]

06.05.02 22:18 [Artikel versenden] [Artikel drucken] [zurück]


Nasdaq fällt klar unter 1.600 Punkte Newssuche
WKN / Symbol / Stichwort




Skandal um amerikanische Investmenthäuser belastet Kurse enorm

Auch zum Start in die neue Handelswoche gehen die amerikanischen Technologiewerte wieder auf Tauchstation. Vor den Quartalszahlen von Cisco und der Zinsentscheidung der US-Notenbank finden sich kaum Käufer. Hinzu kommt, dass die Anleger die Nachricht schockt, dass die Untersuchung verschiedener Investmentbanken zu Herabstufungen für zahlreiche Unternehmen führen könnte.

Dabei geht es darum, dass offenbar eine ganze Reihe von Analystenhäusern positive Empfehlungen zu Aktien heraus gegeben hat, die nicht mit der internen Meinung zu den betroffenen Firmen übereinstimmen. Zu den betroffenen Brokerfirmen gehören nach Meldung der Rating-Agentur Moody’s Credit Suisse First Boston , Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley und Salomon Smith Barney. Sollten sich die Verdachtsmomente bestätigen, könnten für die entsprechenden Unternehmen zum Teil mehrfache Downgrades auf dem Programm stehen

[TOP@S]

Auch dieser artikel zur enronitis/kapitalmarktverdrossenheit ist ganz nett:

ftd.de, Mo, 22.4.2002, 2:00
Geldanlage: Verdrossenheit statt Vertrauen
Von Florian Schröder
Enron, Comroad, Merrill Lynch - die Skandale reißen nicht ab. Experten sprechen bereits von Kapitalmarktverdrossenheit. Was Anleger tun können.


Eine Aktie, zwei Meinungen

Wenn es nicht mehr schlimmer kommen kann, kommt es noch schlimmer. Das gilt nicht nur für viele Aktienkurse, sondern auch für die nicht enden wollende Kette von Skandalen an den Kapitalmärkten: Henry Blodget, einstiger US-Staranalyst, soll bewusst falsche Analysen erstellt haben. Am Neuen Markt brennt die Hütte: Telematik-Spezialist Comroad und Moorhuhn-Erfinder Phenomedia bilanzierten mit Fantasiezahlen, die die Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaften nicht entlarven konnten oder wollten, bis heute.

"Nach dem Enron-Debakel sehen sich auch andere US-Giganten wie Xerox Vorwürfen ausgesetzt, die Gewinne seien manipuliert worden und die Vorstände hätten sich bereichert", sagt Reuven Lehavy, Bilanzexperte an der Berkeley University. "Das Vertrauen der Anleger droht bis auf unbestimmte Zeit verloren zu gehen."

Steht uns nach der Politik- nun eine Kapitalmarktverdrossenheit bevor? Warnsignale gibt es zuhauf: So verabschieden sich nicht nur immer mehr gefrustete Investoren vom Neuen Markt. Auch dort gelistete Vorzeigeunternehmen - es gibt sie tatsächlich noch - erwägen einen Segmentwechsel. "Thiel Logistik etwa", sagt Ekkehard Wenger, Kapitalmarktexperte an der Universität Würzburg. "Was übrig bleibt, ist ein Schrottaufen."

Ein noch düstereres Bild der Lage zeichnet Günther Ogger, Publizist und langjähriger Kritiker der Finanzbranche: "Der Neue Markt löst sich in absehbarer Zeit auf." Einige US-Aktien-Analysten namhafter Banken sollen während der Tech-Blase Aktien gepusht haben, auf die sie selbst keinen Pfifferling mehr setzten, dafür aber geschäftliche Beziehungen pflegten - so die Vorwürfe des New Yorker Staatsanwalts Eliot Spitzer.

Sehr konkret sind die Vorwürfe, denen sich Merrill Lynchs ehemaliger Internet-Guru, Henry Blodget, ausgesetzt sieht (siehe Grafik). So wurde die Aktie von Infospace öffentlich zum Kauf empfohlen, während Henry Blodget sie intern als "Piece of Shit" kommuniziert haben soll. Die FTD bat Blodget um eine Stellungnahmen, wurde aber von ihm an James Wiggins von Merrill Lynch verwiesen. "Die Beweise sind aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen, weil sie nur Zwischenergebnisse einer regen Diskussion per E-Mail widerspiegeln", so Wiggins. Eine Meinung, die der Staatsanwalt Spitzer nicht teilt. Die Ermittlungen werden zurzeit auf andere Großbanken wie Salomon Smith Barney, Lehman Brohers, Bear Stearns oder Goldman Sachs ausgedehnt.

Schärfere Regeln
Auch die US-Börsenaufsicht SEC will noch schärfer vorgehen. "Es ist eine erweiterte Offenlegungspflicht für Analysten geplant", sagt Reuven Lehavy von der Universität Berkeley. Danach muss bei jeder Aktien-Analyse auf etwaige Verbindungen zwischen der Bank und dem betrachteten Unternehmen hingewiesen werden. "Deutsche Analysten sind keinen Deut besser als ihre US-Kollegen", kritisiert Bestseller-Autor Ogger.

Zwar feilt die Bundesregierung am vierten Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz, um die "Übersteigerungen und Manipulationen" am Finanzmarkt einzudämmen. Doch gilt unter den meisten Experten das neue Gesetzeswerk als zahnloser Tiger. So sollen Unternehmen in Zukunft nach falschen Ad-hoc-Mitteilungen stärker haftbar gemacht werden können. "Überhaupt nicht ausreichend und im Prinzip für den Papierkorb", kritisiert Ekkehard Wenger. "Das gesamte Prozesskostenrisiko ist an den Anleger delegiert. Sinnvoll wäre ein institutionell verankerter Berufskläger, der unabhängig und belohnungsorientiert die Anlegerinteressen vor Gericht vertritt."

Hoher Nachholbedarf
Auch Rechtsanwalt Werner Amadeus Meier, Spezialist für Kapitalanlagerecht, sieht reichlich Nachholbedarf: "Die Ansprüche gegen einzelne Personen müssen verbessert werden, sodass Vorstände nicht ihr Unternehmen gewissermaßen als Schutzwall gegenüber den Ansprüchen der Geschädigten missbrauchen können." Zudem seien die Bußgelder viel zu gering; aufgedeckte Betrügereien könnten sich damit sogar noch rechnen. "Dass der Gesetzentwurf in entscheidenden Passagen entschärft wurde, liegt an der Lobbyarbeit der Banken", moniert Wenger. Zudem werde das Bundesaufsichtsamt für den Wertpapierhandel zu 70 Prozent von den Banken finanziert - was dessen Unabhängigkeit infrage stelle.